Appeal No. 98-1947
Application 08/431,702
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s position is not well founded and will therefore
not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Young ‘239 addresses the same general thermal cycling
problem as appellants and teaches a heat exchanger which is
intended to include an open thermal stress relieving zone (26)
in the side supports (24) thereof. See, for example, Figure 2
of Young ‘239. However, like appellants, we note that Young
‘239 (which is referred to on page 2 of the present
specification) includes an elliptical aperture (32) formed in
each of the side supports at the location where the area of
the side supports will ultimately be provided with the open
thermal stress relieving zones (26), instead of a Z-shaped
aperture formed in the side supports as required in the claims
on appeal. The examiner has taken the position (answer, page
4) that
“Having a Z-shaped stress relieving aperture
shape is considered to be an obvious design
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007